Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!olson From: olson@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Olson) Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3) In-Reply-To: nix@asd.sgi.com's message of 2 May 91 22:16:54 GMT Message-ID: Lines: 26 Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43 References: <2450@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 3 May 91 11:58:56 In article nix@asd.sgi.com (Sold to the highest Buddha) writes: It seems to me that a language with a good type inference algorithm and optional type constraints provided by the programmer should be able to do this in many cases, eliminating type tags when they aren't necessary. If you're a static typing fan, you tell the compiler to whine at you if it can't optimize out all type tags at compile time, and you have to provide extra type information to get the code to compile. Is there any reason why this can't be done? Are there any "dynamically typed" languages that do this? Your preceeding wish list sounds like a design document for CMU's "Python" Commom Lisp compiler. I can't vouch for it personally, (am eagerly awaiting a SunOS version) but the user's manual and compiler design notes (FTP-able from CMU) look promising. Nix Thompson nix@sgi.com ...!uunet!sgi!nix -- -- Steve Olson -- MIT Lincoln Laboratory -- olson@juliet.ll.mit.edu --